Huel now supporting EUGENICS?

Yes I guess the first.
But if it’s the first, we are well and truly f*king up. Unless we were created to change the earth from beautiful to messed up.
Maybe we were employed by someone who really hates nature.

Well when the earth was first made it was a mess of volcano’s, poison gas and lava, so perhaps the creator wants it back like that?

Having just been to Iceland so accurately described by you I could go back to the olden times. 64.1466° N, 21.9426° W as I forgot to mention in a previous thread.

Why do you people keep talking about earth? You know there’s more than one planet. I expect the Martian colonies to up and running in the next couple of decades.

This topic makes me sad, because at first glance I read it as “Huel now supporting EURHYTHMICS?” I would’ve loved that. Lennox chugging a shakerful and belting out a fart.

3 Likes

The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother’s keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you.

1 Like

That would sound better than anything the Tourists recorded. “I only want to be with Huel”

3 Likes

That’s not Annie Lennox is it? She looks different since made an OBE.

The original context of the suggestion of reducing population to help reduce climate change dates back to 2009 and was rounded out in the major study mentioned in the Science magazine in 2017 on the climate mitigation gap – this focused on areas of Improvement that education and government recommendations miss out despite them often being the most effective individual actions – presumably due to them being quite controversial.

It was a very broad ranging study that actually looked into over 200 scenarios of how individuals can contribute that were graded in to low, medium and high impact solutions. These were whittled down to 148 individual behaviours in ten countries (the whole EU region counted as one), before identifying a dozen actions, including four recommended actions that were of a substantial magnitude throughout the developed world: having one fewer child, living car free, avoiding air travel and eating a plant-based diet.

Each of these actions was high-impact (reducing an individual’s greenhouse gas emissions by at least 0.8 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year), the 'have one fewer child’ scenario relied on a previous study which quantified future emissions of descendants based on historical rates.

It’s also worth noting that over the past few decades, the childbirth has been reducing anyway - European average household sizes fell from 3.1 persons per house to 2.3, in Africa, the average household size fell from 5.3 persons per household to 4.0.

Trends in household size are influenced by changes in health, longevity and migration; intergenerational co-residence, home leaving, cohabitation, marriage and divorce and the socioeconomic factors that help shape these trends.

None of this however implies the support of Eugenics which is an entirely different thing altogether and ludicrous to suggest it.

2 Likes

Maybe George Carlin was right and the earth created humans because it wanted plastic. :yum:

I’ve copied my reply from the US forum to this post which can only be described as misinterpreting what we are saying. Please feel free to continue this discussion below, hopefully it clears a few things up.

Hueligan 1: I find it disgusting that Huel supports/encourages having fewer children. It really seems anti family and awful.

Hueligan 2: Huel is proposing is to shame people who would want to have children and make them feel guilty because another child, according to this mindset, would be harmful to the environment/planet.

Me: Let me tackle these two misconceptions. Having fewer children can be better for the environment, but it’s not black and white and the only way forward. Some people do use it as a way to promote a method of population control that is best kept in dystopian novels, but that’s simply hijacking the premise of this point.

It’s pretty clear in the article as Deron has pointed out which steps to improving one’s carbon footprint are feasible and also where this point is coming from. The article also provides references so you can read in more detail.

Hueligan: it is well known that the global warming/climate change agenda is just the newest front for eugenics and population reduction. I could easily provide evidence from decades prior that relate to how the world is going to be destroyed due to overpopulation, global warming, etc

Me: This is ridiculous and the claim that global warming has been wrong in the past is also incorrect. It’s mainly been pushed by sensationalist media and a handful of scientists. Even the author of one of these widespread articles wrote a follow-up piece debunking some misused information by others from his piece: https://www.insidescience.org/news/my-1975-cooling-world-story-doesnt-make-todays-climate-scientists-wrong

The climate prediction models from the 1970s are still holding true today.

Hueligan: I also agree that strategies like NATURAL family planning can be utilized.

Me: This is a key strategy so is educating women which leads to naturally fewer children due to having children later in life and having a higher quality of life in general. The article we wrote is relatively short because that’s how long we have peoples’ attention for. We’re not saying population control is the answer, because it isn’t and that sort of thinking alone like you said leads to some horrible ideas. You can see from this thread that the majority of people are not thinking this way. I’d really recommend reading the references at the bottom of the article for a better idea of where we are coming from.

Hueligan: Huel has elected to promote something that is part of a political agenda that has nothing to do with their products

Me: It’s not a political agenda. In fact, climate change never used to be a partisan issue. For the 11,602 scientific articles that were published in 2019 100% agreed about the reality of human-caused climate change. Amongst people who know there stuff this no longer even a 97% majority, we can’t ignore it.

4 Likes